Skip to main content

About your Search

20121204
20121204
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
it often doesn't work out that way. in fact from kennedy to reagan to clinton to w. bush lower tax rates frequently increased tax revenues, particularly at the upper end of the income stream. so here now to discuss this we have cnbc contributor keith boykin a former clinton white house aide and forbes media chairman steve forbes author of freedom manifesto, why free markets are moral and big government is not. love that. hey steve and keith. keith boykin i'll give you a little supply side. you'll hate this. this couples from the irs. the irs is going to use the bush cut, the dreaded bush tax cuts. the richest 1% paid $84 billion inflation adjusted dollars more between 2000 and 2007. that's a rise of 23%. in other words, their tax rates went down. and their tax revenues went up. now, isn't mr. obama making a mistake? >> well, the rich are paying more in taxes because the rich are disproportionately receiving most of the income in this country. the reality, larry, is that in my lifetime we've actually only raised income tax rates three times. once in 1969 to pay for the vietnam war. once i
the president said either moving them or using them. today secretary of state clinton mentioned only using them. jay carney, the white house spokesman also repeated that phrase, did not mention the president's earlier condition about moving them around. so it's a little bit unclear whether the administration perhaps has changed its red line. >> rose: do you think the united states is thinking about doing this unilaterally or is this an action taking place in conjunction with other forces from other countries? >> no, whatever action will be taken, charlie, would almost certainly be done in conjunction with other allies in the region. the jordanians, for instance, the turks, all have been closely consulted in recent months. the u.s. is actually operating out of a small business in jordan, about 150 troops there helping the jordanians deal with the exodus of refugees coming out of syria as well as preparing for the possible use of chemical weapons in syria itself. >> rose: how about the israelis? >> of course, the israelis -- of course they are watching this very closely in the region with intelli
during the clinton administration when the tax rates were higher on upper income families, that certainly didn't kill economic growth. we have incredible economic growth during the clinton years. this same, tired argument that we hear time and time again that any kind of tax increase on anyone will hurt the economy, it isn't borne out by history. >> there are analysts that say both of these proposals are essentially for the base, and na in reality both sides know you'll come to the middle. you have johnny isakson who said earlier there's too much posturing going on here. what is your response that in relation the proposal from the white house and the president as well as from speaker boehner and the republicans were just for the base? >> they certainly are the opening show of cards, and i don't think it's where either party expects to end at the end of the day. i think we're closer to where the president has proposed than we are to the non-offer from speaker boehner. i think that's reflected in what the american people want to see happen, and i think we'll see a final result much closer t
republicans? joining us for a fair & balanced debate, simon rosenberg, a former clinton campaign adviser and president and founder of ndn, just for clarity, a democrat. and the former chairman of the republican party of virginia. kate, does the republican party mead to change its position on immigration? >> well, does it darn dash no it needs to actually star, it needs to talk bim congratulations. strstrategic decisions were made to stay away from the issues that affected these democrat i cans that the republicans did terrible with. the democrats define you on these positions, then as anti-immigration or as the president defined the republicans as the enemy of latino, he actually used that word. rips have to start being savvy and realize that their message is won't that truly does appeal to immigrants, the one of hope and opportunity. why do immigrants come to the united states? for freedom and prosperity. republicans have to start conveying they are the party of freedom and prosperity and start talking about legal immigration. look at these people around the world who have spent their l
not to use chemical weapons. secretary of state hillary clinton says if assad goes down that road, there will be consequences. >> suffice it to say we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur. >> this week nato foreign ministers are expected to approve turkey's request for patriot antimissile systems. turkey has been supportive of assad opponents and is concerned about possible retaliation by syrian missiles. >>> iran says it captured an american drove but a navy spokesman says none are missing. the commander says all the unmanned surveillance aircraft in the region are accounted for. other nations in the gulf including the united arab emirates have drones in service. >>> 5:15. muni issues are fixed. >> reporter: power was restored about 15 minutes ago before the morning commute heated up this morning so things are back on track. no delays for any muni lines right now so you be good to go for mass transit altogether. in fact, bart, ace, caltrain and ferries on time as well as muni. now, elsewhere we have a couple of things to look out for later on to
. secretary of state clinton said this about the possible use of e emical weapons. >> this is a red line for the united states. i'm not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people but suffice it to say we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur. >> reporter: seizing the chemical weapons and agents would require putting up to 75,000 troops on the ground. a massive operation that u.s. officials say is only likely to happen if and when assad falls. preventing assad from using his weapons would require air strikes against sights defended by russian-made anti-aircraft missiles. for now, the obama administration is backing up its public warnings by sending private messages to assad through one of his few remaining allies, russia. >> pelley: david, thank you. the assad dictatorship has ruled syria for more than 40 years. the syrian people rebelled last year and it's been open warfare ever since. it's extremely hazardous for reporters to
aware of the seriousness of the president's position on this. >> secretary of state clinton is in brawls attending the nato foreign minister session. she emphasized that the patriot system being deployed to turkey are not meant to destabilize the already uneasy relationship with russia as the spokesman at home urged now to join the international community in helping to ease bashar al-assad. >>shepard: thank you from the state department. that is the reporting. now the context and perspective. now to the director of the program on arab politics at the washington institute for near east policy a "american bandstand" group of scholars whose mission is to advance america's interests overseas. how big a move is this movement of chemical weapons? what does it tell us in the big picture? >>guest: it is very significant. it highlights the desperation of assad regime, the fact he is mixing the recursors of sarin gas, that is a scare tactic for us to keep us out of it, and, also, warning the people of syria he could be prepared to use these if he is brought down. >>shepard: based on what the unite
the president or either from secretary clinton or tony blair is, you know, they talk about the if. what then? any possible scenarios, possible action, i'm not hearing concrete scenarios, are you? >> well, you're not, brooke. i think for a very good reason. they want to stop this before it gets to that. nobody wants to have to strike at syrian chemical weapons plants. if you think about it logically, it is a very tough target. you have to know exactly where it is. you have to strike that hard enough to virtually incinerate all the chemical or biological material there before it escapes into the atmosphere. if those chemical weapons started to go on the move, in artillery shells or bombs, could you chase them all down? and, of course, in syria, much of this material is located or co-located in neighborhoods and towns with civilian populations. so you're putting civilian populations at risk. i think that's why you're hearing the very tough language from washington to nato headquarters. everybody wants this stopped before it even happens, brooke. >> talking about baer last hour, former cia, he s
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)